Influential Council on Foreign Relations Refutes Partisan Criticism, Conspiracy Theories by Sean OíDriscoll In July, the State Departmentís director of policy planning, Richard Haass, resigned his post to take over the presidency of the Council on Foreign Relations, arguably the worldís most influential foreign policy think tank. The fact that one of Secretary of State Colin Powellís closest advisers is willing to leave his post to take over as president of the council is testament to the organizationís immense influence. It is, as Haass said, an opportunity he could not pass up. The Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) has been described as the ìpreeminent intermediary between the world of high finance, big oil, corporate elitism and the U.S. government,î as journalist and author Jonathan Vankin put it. ìIts members slide smoothly into cabinet-level jobs in Republican and Democratic administrations,î Vankin said. ìThe policies promulgated in its quarterly journal, Foreign Affairs, become official U.S. government policy.î With a membership that includes 4,000 of the most powerful people in the worlds of U.S. business, academia, media and politicsóalong with an endowment that has tripled over the past decadeóthe CF Rís tremendous influence inevitably attracts criticism. Scores of Internet searches will turn up a seemingly endless stream of conspiracy theories about the councilóthat it is Masonic, it promotes world government, it is a liberal conspiracy, a capitalist conspiracy, and even, in one case, that it promotes adultery. One of the better-informed organizations, the leftist Political Research Associates, includes an exhaustive list of the CFRís corporate links and its membersí political connections. The CFR, Political Research Associates insists, is primarily right wing in nature and is used by U.S. corporations as a front to alter any foreign policy that it considers anti-business. CFR members will tell you privately that some criticism probably stems from the fact that the Rockefellers and other wealthy industrialist families helped set up the council in the aftermath of World War I. It was, by many accounts, a closed shop for rich white men to discuss foreign policy over a cigar and brandy. However, the councilís directors say todayís CFR has transformed itself into an organization that is targeting women and minorities and, through the Internet, has reached a global audience that was unthinkable 10 years ago. Although outgoing president Leslie Gelb turned the organizationís deficit into a surplus of tens of millions of dollars, Haass insists Gelb did this in a very careful way, so that big business was never allowed to overtake the councilís independence. ìI think you can guard yourself against the appearance as well as the reality of those kinds of conflicts of interest,î Haass said. ìFirst, you do this by being totally transparent, and second, by having enough revenue streams so no single source of money is even allowed to appear to influence you.î Haass said that the CFR has escaped the criticism leveled at some corporate-friendly nonprofits by never allowing corporate donations to become its sole source of funding. ìThe organization has a number of revenue streams: There is corporate giving, money from foundations, thereís membership dues, there is Foreign Affairs magazine, we rent out our spaceóthatís very important,î he said. Haass also rejected the criticism that the organization is closed off and only accepts members who are asked to join. ìThe idea is to keep it selective, to invite individuals who have a real interest in international relations, who have in one way or another had some impact,î he said. ìOn the other hand, you have over 4,000 members around the country, so clearly itís an organization which welcomes new members.î Claims of bias from both sides of the political spectrum are also quickly denied. ìItís simply not true,î said Haass. ìThere are representatives in the organization from across the political spectrum. The organization itself is scrupulously nonpartisan, and I defy anyone to make the case that there is a bias or tilt whatsoever. I donít think itís possible at all to pigeonhole the council.î Haass insisted that communication with the government is conducted in an open, transparent manner and is not the secretive cabal depicted by groups opposed to the CFR. ìThe council communicates to the administration in a number of different ways,î he said, citing Foreign Affairs magazine and the councilís taskforce reports as ways in which the administration picks up on the councilís ideas. ìPeople associated with the council also meet with people from the administration in the aftermath of some study,î Haass added. ìCouncil members testify before Congress. They appear on television and radio or write op-eds for newspapers. Essentially, people in the council are in the ideas business. They can, and do, market their ideas in many ways.î Peter Peterson, chairman of the CFR and a former commerce secretary under Richard Nixon, has heard accusations that the organization is pro whatever administration is in place but rejects the notion as misguided. He pointed to taskforces set up by the council on various issues, which often contradict White House policies. ìOur taskforce reports are critical of the administration,î Peterson said. ìWeíre about to come out with a report on public diplomacy where the taskforce was quite critical of the administration. So I think weíre trying to play it down the middle. Iíve heard those comments but I donít know what [the critics] are talking about.î Peterson argued that the CFRís drive to attract more underrepresented groups is evidence of its commitment to include a wide range of critical opinion, stressing that the CFR is anything but a private club. ìIn the last number of years, weíve had a major emphasis on diversity, including women, African Americans and Hispanics,î Peterson said. ìWeíve also had a major emphasis on attracting young people. Itís true that we have many more people wishing to join than we have room for, but [members] tend to be very broad-based groups on the membership committee, so the term ëclubí doesnít quite resonate with me.î Lee Cullum, chairwoman of the CFR membership committee and a columnist for the Dallas Morning News, said that most people join by simply filling out an application form instead of being handpicked by the councilís board. ìThe vast majority of people apply without being asked to join,î she said. ìIf someone had huge experience, then some member might say, ëI just canít believe youíre not a member,í but the initiative, most of the time, comes from the person themselves.î Her own membership, she said, came about from a drive to include more women. ìA friend suggested it to meóa man named Richard Fisher, who lives in Dallas and Washington. He is the former deputy trade representative under Clinton. I think he was involved in an effort in the council to attract more female members. He asked if I was interested, and of course I was,î Cullum said. According to Peterson, the interest in opening up the CFR has spread to the councilís board of directors, about half of whom are now elected by members, while the other half are appointed, partly as a way of protecting minority interest. ìOne of the reasons some board members are appointed is because members of minorities, who are not known, may have trouble getting elected,î Peterson said. The CFRís vice chairwoman, Carla Hills, said that modern technology has opened up the organization even further, and she quickly rejected accusations that the council is a private club. ìA private club has a connotation,î she said. ì[The council] is private in one sense because it is a member organization, but even if youíre not a member, you can still benefit because there is a tremendous outreach. If you go on the Internet, you have a truly wonderful information source, and this is recognized by the New York Times and CNN.î All of the members that The Washington Diplomat spoke with emphasized the importance of the CFR taskforces, which are set up to write reports on specialized areas of interest. The taskforce reports are given to the media at press conferences, along with any dissenting opinions by taskforce members. ìThe council itself does not take positions on issues,î noted Peterson. ìIt is only individual members in taskforces who take positions. It is a very broad range of people, and every member of the taskforce has ample opportunity to dissent. The dissent is always printed, so itís a very open process.î Hills agreed that taskforce members normally come to a broad consensus on their reports but added that a close study of the issues often leads to agreement. ìPeople who have studied issues very carefully will generally come to a round consensus. That doesnít mean that they wonít dissent on some issues, but they can usually feel comfortable in the umbrella of the overall report,î she said. None of this seems to do much to stem criticism from Internet-based political groups, which see the taskforces as holding back vital information to please their political and business interests. Haass, however, says criticism of the council from both the left and right wings is a good indication that the organization is sticking to its promise of nonpartisanship. ìIf youíre getting it from all sides, that tells you something,î he said. ìThere is no litmus test here in who you hire or what you publish other than quality. You want to hire good people and publish thoughtful, serious material. Thatís all there is to it.î Sean OíDriscoll is a contributing writer for The Washington Diplomat.